Objective
Rational development of technology for rapid control of non-compressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH) requires detailed understanding of what is bleeding. Our objectives were to describe the anatomic location of truncal bleeding in patients presenting with NCTH and compare endovascular (ENDO) versus open (OPEN) management.
Methods
Retrospective study of adult trauma patients with NCTH admitted to 4 urban level 1 trauma centers in the Houston and San Antonio metropolitan areas in 2008–2012. Inclusion criteria: named axial torso vessel disruption, AIS chest or abdomen ≥3 with shock (base excess <−4) or truncal operation in ≤90 minutes, or pelvic fracture with ring disruption. Exclusion criteria: isolated hip fractures, falls from standing, or prehospital CPR. After dichotomizing into OPEN, ENDO, and resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) groups based on the initial approach to control NCTH, a mixed-effects Poisson regression with robust error variance (controlling for age, mechanism, ISS, shock, hypotension, and severe head injury as fixed effects and site as a random effect) was used to test the hypothesis that ENDO was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in NCTH patients.
Results
543 patients with NCTH underwent ENDO (n=166, 31%), OPEN (n=309, 57%), or RT (n=68, 12%). Anatomic bleeding locations were 25% chest, 41% abdomen, and 31% pelvis. ENDO was used to treat relatively few types of vascular injuries, while OPEN and RT injuries were more diverse. ENDO patients had more blunt trauma (95% vs 34% vs 32%); severe injuries (median ISS 34 vs 27 vs 21), and increased time to intervention (median 298 vs 92 vs 51 min), compared to OPEN and RT. Mortality was 15% vs 20% vs 79%. ENDO was associated with decreased mortality compared to OPEN (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46–0.73).
Conclusion
Although ENDO may reduce mortality in NCTH patients, significant group differences limit the generalizability of this finding.
Level of Evidence
Level V (Prognostic and Epidemiologic)